http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
00:34:33 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 19 00:34:29 2011
New Revision: 182467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182467
Log:
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/conditio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-26
23:35:30 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 26 23:35:26 2011
New Revision: 180549
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180549
Log:
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/conditio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-26
14:06:12 UTC ---
Yes, thanks for spotting it. Ideally we'd define this_thread::yield() anyway,
but until then the test should use the dg-require
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #15 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-10-26
13:55:25 UTC ---
Shouldn't the testcase contain:
// { dg-require-sched-yield "" }
? I'm getting a failure because this_thread::yield is not defined, and
30_threads/this_thread/2.cc contains this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #14 from bartek 'basz' szurgot
2011-10-26 13:42:29 UTC ---
uhum - i missed that one... :/
ok then - looks like http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862#c10 is a
working solution. :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-26
13:05:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> unique_lock __my_lock(_M_mutex);
> _Unlock __unlock(__lock);
> unique_lock __my_lock2(std::move(__my_lock));
> _M_cond.wait(__my_lock2);
> __unlock.relea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-26
13:02:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> i'm not sure about uncaught_exception(). i remember reading in Herb Sutter's
> that it's usage should be avoided, since it has some flaw, that makes it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #11 from bartek 'basz' szurgot
2011-10-26 12:41:34 UTC ---
i'm not sure about uncaught_exception(). i remember reading in Herb Sutter's
that it's usage should be avoided, since it has some flaw, that makes it's
return value unsure. bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-26
10:29:50 UTC ---
Yes, I suppose it should be:
~_Unlock()
{
if (uncaught_exception())
__try { _M_lock.lock(); } __catch(...) { }
else
_M_lock.lock();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #9 from bartek 'basz' szurgot
2011-10-26 06:39:15 UTC ---
implementation is nice. i think there is still one more problem to be fixed,
though. namely the line:
~_Unlock() { _M_lock.lock(); }
since lock() may throw an exception, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-25
22:29:41 UTC ---
fixed on trunk so far, I'll wait until 4.6.2 is released then fix it for 4.6.3
too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-25
20:56:47 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 25 20:56:43 2011
New Revision: 180446
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180446
Log:
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/condition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #6 from basz 2011-10-25
14:45:29 UTC ---
yes - you're right. i got this note all wrong. thanks for the clarifications
and links!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-25
14:09:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> condition_variable_any is a bit more confusing. it says that it must be called
> in 30.5.2.10, but 30.5.2.9 say it is undefined, if lock is called or not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #4 from basz 2011-10-25
13:51:45 UTC ---
the most recent document on C++0x i have is N3290. according to it it is so for
condition_variable (30.5.1.9 and 30.5.1.10), but description for wait() of
condition_variable_any is a bit more c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #1 from basz 2011-10-25
10:28:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 25611
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25611
patch fixing the problem
unlocking local mutex, before locking back user's lock solves the problem.
19 matches
Mail list logo
